yeah or a painting magazine devoting a page to a childs colouring picture.

Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake stop being such an awful snob. I've used all sorts of cameras over the years for artistic reasons, and I try to use my phonecam for the same thing. It's an electronic Holga, if you like. If you've not got the breadth of artistic vision to see that, fine, if you don't like the results, fine - but stop knocking the idea for the sake of it simply because you think it's way beneath you.

Phones are great for making phone calls. They suck for taking pictures. In my opinion they cannot be made to not suck for that purpose. (with apologies to Brian Reid)

Click to expand...

That is funny - I'll give you that. And it's always satisfying to see someone putting one over on Nick. ;-))

But to get back to the point, I do wonder how many of the people expressing their concern about the 'Snapper's Diary' piece have actually seen it. It takes up less space than the penguin used to, and probably about the same amount as the duck does now. The duck has been pretty much universally welcomed on these forums, and that's fine, but it would be somewhat bizarre if a cartoon about a duck with a camera was deemed an acceptable use of a few square inches of space in a photography magazine whilst a feature including a genuine photograph taken by some means other than a conventional 'camera' necessarily wasn't.

And I wouldn't for a minute suggest that image quality is that great - but that simply misses both possible points. One, that a phone cam does actually take pictures, and has a chance of being with you when there's no other phone; and two, that the very awfulness of some phonecams can actually be a valid artistic choice in the same idiom as pinhole, Holgas, Lensbabies etc etc etc. You may not like the results, but that doesn't make them invalid.